• player2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    And what would that lesson be? The people who fought nuclear for decades caused as much damage to the climate as the interim coal companies because that is who supplied the power instead.

    • cloud@lazysoci.al
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      And what would that lesson be?

      If you are interested go to their website and read what they have to say about nuclear. Climate activists do not advocate for coal and most likely live in such a way that they cause less damage to the climate than the average person, including you.

      • player2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You skipped over my point. I think the activists let perfection get in the way of progress. I know that they’re not advocating for coal, but by fighting nuclear they left no other scalable solution other than coal. Nuclear doesn’t have to be a forever solution, but it’s a perfect stop gap in the meantime.

        Surely these activists contributed to progress on some other, smaller sources of renewable energy, but at the cost of decades of record breaking greenhouse gas emissions.

        Nuclear could have put a halt to many if not most coal and natural gas plants until other sources of renewable energy improve and have time to get built out.

        • cloud@lazysoci.al
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          A perfect stop gap in the meantime is not a solution. Remember that coal as a piece of rock it’s not a problem, the problem is caused by society relying on burning coal to satisfy its frivolous consumes. The climate crisis is not caused by activists fighting against it. Renewables could have put a halt to polluting energy the same way you claim nuclear would have, with the difference that it would have been even better because nuclear comes with other issues.